Philip Booth of Artelia (employers agent and CDM coordinator for Grenfell Tower refurbishment) gives evidence on project management roles, the rejection of a client design advisor appointment, and quality management oversight during the refurbishment works.
00:00:10 would you ask mr booze to come back in
00:00:14 please
00:00:28 hmm right mr boo is ready to carry on yes i am
00:00:33 am good thank you yes it's great yes thank you mr booth so we know that there are two points in time when the contractual obligations of artelia were addressed first in august
00:00:44 artelia were addressed first in august 2012 when the standard rics terms of engagement are proposed and then a variation in july 2014 when the contract documents are formally signed
00:00:55 are formally signed do you recall that so i'm aware of the contract
00:00:59 contract um that we sign up to our in terms of condition
00:01:03 condition when you started in 2012 what was your understanding of the contractual position of artelio so i was introduced and told by um
00:01:14 so i was introduced and told by um robert powell and simon cash that we were performing three duties
00:01:22 duties employers agent which would be the role that i would be taking on uh quantity surveyor which was uh chu chen lin and um we were also the cdmc which was keith buschel so
00:01:35 cdmc which was keith buschel so and they took me through uh you know where the project was as part of my getting up to speed on the project
00:01:43 project yeah let's just look at a document on this this is the fee proposal if we go to art406358
00:01:54 to art406358 we can see that this is it's before your involvement in the project but it's the second of may 2012 and it's to mark anderson and we can see from the first paragraph that
00:02:07 we can see from the first paragraph that this is an offer for those three services that you've just described there so we can see further to our recent conversation outline briefing and then the second line i have pleasure in setting our proposal for the
00:02:19 in setting our proposal for the provision of quantity surveying employers agent and cdm coordinator services
00:02:24 services in connection with the proposed improvement works to grenfell tower you see that there yes and just to be absolutely clear um were you was it your understanding when
00:02:35 were you was it your understanding when you joined the project that artelia had offered employers agent services and not project management services
00:02:42 services yes yeah now during your work on the grenfell project the 2014 contract was agreed we know that did you read through the july 2014
00:02:53 that did you read through the july 2014 contract
00:02:54 contract when it was agreed yes [Applause]
00:03:00 and were you aware at that time of the exclusion
00:03:03 exclusion express exclusion of project management services
00:03:07 services when that was agreed yes is it your understanding that contractually artelia was never obliged to provide any project management services
00:03:17 services i don't think we were no did you understand that someone else was performing a formal project management role on the grenfell tower refurbishment yes and who was that who did you think
00:03:29 yes and who was that who did you think was doing that it was a client role so um claire williams was the main role and that performed that but prior to her
00:03:40 that performed that but prior to her there were other people like paul duncan and and others so i always understood it was the client that were fulfilling the project management role yeah but prior
00:03:51 project management role yeah but prior to claire williams joining the project did you have a clear understanding of who was project managing from the client side yes paul duncan right
00:04:02 yes paul duncan right now going back to claire williams were you aware did you ever were you ever informed about what training skills and experience she had in project management
00:04:13 she had in project management so when she was introduced to me i understood that she had experience of social housing elsewhere
00:04:24 social housing elsewhere she'd done capital projects refurbishment projects uh for other social housing enterprises um so she seemed good fit
00:04:36 um so she seemed good fit to fulfill the duties that she was put forward for and did you understand that she'd fulfilled the role as project manager on some of those previous projects i didn't question her as to what she
00:04:48 i didn't question her as to what she fulfilled the role as but she came across
00:04:50 across as competent knew knew about what she was talking about did her skills and training appear to you to be equivalent to yours at that point
00:05:02 equivalent to yours at that point um i think we're we're different in terms of our experiences she was very much experienced of
00:05:14 she was very much experienced of delivering for housing association on their side refurbishment projects and i was more at being an employee's agent or on
00:05:26 more at being an employee's agent or on as a consultant basis a project manager i see yeah now can we now turn to uh the draft revised project brief from june 2013. this is
00:05:37 june 2013. this is four zeroes one two one nine
00:05:44 now this is dated the 10th i think we think it's the 10th of june 2013.
00:05:50 2013. we can see it's definitely june 2013 at the top of that page and it describes the project title and the client there and a description of the project and if we go on to page
00:06:01 of the project and if we go on to page five within this document we can see that the project team is set out do you see that there i do
00:06:12 out do you see that there i do and you are listed with robert powell as the project manager do you see that there i do who wrote this revised project brief can you recall
00:06:24 i can't but i think it might have been robert powell right it wasn't you then i don't think so
00:06:32 so i know i was at meetings where this was discussed yeah um we can see in this version that you seem to have made some comments on the draft look if we look up at page four for example
00:06:45 we can see on the right hand side there's some pb comments do you see those yes i do those your comments i believe they are yes yeah so we can take it from this that you read this
00:06:56 take it from this that you read this brief
00:06:57 brief yes and if we look at page two under contract and procurement at the top of that page and it's in the third paragraph
00:07:08 third paragraph in the last sentence
00:07:13 so it begins that paragraph the design team who have been involved in the project to date will remain appointed and will continue through to project completion and then
00:07:24 completion and then previous plans to novate all designers to the principal contractor are to be reviewed and then it says this apple yards who had previously acted as ea
00:07:32 ea qs will take on a full pmea role in addition to their qs responsibilities and will fulfill the lead consultant role do you see that there
00:07:42 there i do so is it right that in this document artelia was putting forward a proposal to act as project manager as well as employers agent i think yeah that's fair and can you
00:07:53 i think yeah that's fair and can you help us
00:07:53 help us why was that proposal being put forward at this stage what was the reason for that
00:07:59 that um so in the early this is the early part of me being involved still with the handover
00:08:05 handover and the project was in a sort of bit of a state of distress and we were reforming through our status report around that
00:08:16 through our status report around that sort of time as well in april and june what was the project because it kind of hit a wall and wasn't getting anywhere so there were a number of things that were being
00:08:27 were a number of things that were being reviewed with the client as tmo as to how to reform the project to make sure we
00:08:37 sure we you know could move it forward and we prepared a short term action plan and yeah there were times where we were um reviewing who was who was doing what
00:08:48 um reviewing who was who was doing what and you've refreshed my memory there i think you know evidently at one point we were talking about being the pm or the lead consultant but we didn't actually end up doing that in terms of
00:09:01 end up doing that in terms of appointment i mean in terms of who is the right person to fulfill the role of project manager i actually think it was it rightly sat
00:09:13 i actually think it was it rightly sat on the client side because um the wider scheme of responsibility for a project manager
00:09:21 manager was going to be largely around for this project um the complications for this project so like resident liaison lots of communication within all
00:09:33 liaison lots of communication within all the other
00:09:33 the other departments within the tmo so i think i actually
00:09:36 actually think it sat correctly yeah in-house as a
00:09:40 a client side i think it would be very difficult
00:09:43 difficult for artelia or myself or anyone to actually fulfill the wider remit of project manager right yeah you talked there about the project
00:09:54 yeah you talked there about the project being in distress um was it your perception that um certainly apple yard's understanding was that
00:10:01 that the project needed stronger project management at this point to move it forward
00:10:09 um i think it was before my time but in my
00:10:18 but in my briefing as to where the project had got to
00:10:22 to there are a number of contributing factors as to why the the project had sort of stalled and got stuck
00:10:30 stuck largely around um negotiations with uh lead bitter that wasn't progressing particularly well there was there were you know it was
00:10:42 there was there were you know it was over budget um and so there was lots of discussion going back and forth about scope what could what what could what could be afforded yeah i think what i'm getting at here is why
00:10:53 i think what i'm getting at here is why were apple yards proposing at this stage that there should be some form of professional project management on their part
00:11:00 part what was the reason for that um can you help us
00:11:09 what was the reason i think
00:11:17 i don't know but it needed a bit of it did need
00:11:21 did need some um clarity as the what uh what are the next steps that were needed in the short short-term plan yeah so um i think that's why we were talking it through
00:11:32 talking it through with them and it was considered whether or not we should take that role on but ultimately we didn't yeah can we move forward then to some minutes of a meeting 6th of june
00:11:43 to some minutes of a meeting 6th of june 2013. this is a rt409106
00:11:54 so we can see these are some minutes tmo meeting it says in the top there 6th of june 2013 and we can see i think for that you took you were the author of these minutes is that correct
00:12:06 these minutes is that correct underneath author we have your name that's great so you took the minutes i wrote them yes yeah and then if we look at item 1.1 on this same page we can see
00:12:20 on this same page we can see it says pb is that you philip booth yes bb
00:12:24 bb presented the draft revised project brief it was agreed to insert overall project costs including fees and surveys
00:12:31 surveys not just construction costs subject to the proposed changes the brief was he'd approved advised that following the inclusion of fees and surveys a full picture of project affordability will be
00:12:42 picture of project affordability will be known
00:12:42 known which may require visit revisiting the removal and additions to the project so we've got the minute there now is it right that the changes that were
00:12:53 is it right that the changes that were agreed in terms of this project brief were around including more about the overall project costs and fees and surveys yes from my memory yeah
00:13:05 yes from my memory yeah is it right that none of the changes were about the proposal that artelia would act as project manager i don't i don't recall this like vividly
00:13:16 i don't i don't recall this like vividly in my memory but i don't think that was a part of the discussion of that meeting at all otherwise it would have been on the minutes
00:13:25 minutes yeah that was going to be my next question do you recall any specific discussion about the project manager role and artelia taking that up at this meeting
00:13:35 meeting i don't i mean this was a time where the fees and roles and responsibilities were
00:13:41 were being discussed and reviewed amongst the rest of the professional team as well and it was a combination of what needs to be done how much has been spent to date what uh
00:13:53 how much has been spent to date what uh what needs to be set as the roles and responsibilities going forward so it was a it was like an iterative
00:14:04 so it was a it was like an iterative process at that time and there were a few changes as as happens sometimes when you're negotiating terms and conditions of roles
00:14:13 roles for the team but would you accept that if you read these minutes in conjunction with that revised proposal it would suggest that artelia was approved to act as project manager at
00:14:24 approved to act as project manager at this point i could see how that would be read from that yes
00:14:29 that yes was that your understanding at the time of this meeting that artely had got that green light um i well the brief had been approved
00:14:41 um i well the brief had been approved and i was concentrating this time rather rather than on my you know specific terms and conditions of the appointment i was concentrating on delivering the short-term plan that we put together
00:14:54 short-term plan that we put together yeah so if you've been asked at the end of this meeting going forward now are you acting as project manager what would you have said um
00:15:06 i probably would have said uh at that time i
00:15:09 time i i may well have been fulfilling some of the duties as a as a consultant project manager yeah after this meeting this is june 2013 were there ever any discussions
00:15:22 2013 were there ever any discussions with the tmo about whether artelia was in fact to act as project manager as had been proposed in the brief
00:15:30 no it really wasn't something that was talked about right i mean i i have to say you know i've been parted to causing some of this confusion here by writing
00:15:42 some of this confusion here by writing myself down as project manager because that's
00:15:44 that's like my job title at artelia yeah so um and i'm sorry for that confusion yeah what's there what we're trying to get at is was there a period of time when artelia
00:15:56 when artelia did consider itself as acting as project manager
00:15:59 manager um i don't i don't i don't particularly feel there was no um
00:16:06 um i mean it's not it's not a hard line in in in industry that um being an employer's agent or project manager is they're quite close as
00:16:17 manager is they're quite close as uh as roles but in terms of even if i you know i was never given any authority limits by the client the client was always at almost every
00:16:29 the client was always at almost every meeting we went to if you look at all our meetings so in terms of fulfilling a role as project manager if i did through you know pre actually signing our appointments it was always
00:16:41 appointments it was always i was never making decisions on behalf of the client because they were they were very hands-on they were very experienced they were very there and involved usually when i'm employed as a project manager is because a client is
00:16:55 project manager is because a client is perhaps not got the resource to dedicate to a project so i'd be representing them without them being present there or making decisions with authority limits
00:17:04 limits maybe like up to ten thousand pounds or something like that that was never here this was um so whatever label you put on it i was organizing and orchestrating whether
00:17:16 organizing and orchestrating whether you call it an ea you're a project manager
00:17:20 manager to your knowledge was it ever minuted in a meeting that artelia was not acting as project manager no but i think yeah i think it was understood by everybody that we our
00:17:33 understood by everybody that we our appointment was as the employer's agent but um because that was what our appointment documents were and i think tmo were clear that they were
00:17:45 i think tmo were clear that they were the project manager but we had project management capabilities and sometimes we did help out yeah
00:17:52 out yeah would you accept that this might have been confusing for the tmo including claire williams in terms of whether artelio was itself acting as project manager maybe
00:18:03 itself acting as project manager maybe but she never raised it with me and they were very they were very vociferous in going through our appointment document i mean they're a very diligent client uh you know there's there's correspondence for you know going
00:18:15 correspondence for you know going through our appointment documents checking
00:18:17 checking you know every tick box and every line and they've been negotiating over a long period of time that's why it took so long to actually be signed up to in the end it was scrutinized heavily by their
00:18:28 scrutinized heavily by their jenny jackson as their procurement expert
00:18:32 expert plus claire and others so yeah i don't think she was in doubt but i can see that we didn't help by calling ourselves a project manager yeah
00:18:43 yeah and that was the subject of my next set of questions in that do you accept that there are times when you are describing yourself as project manager yes because that as i understand it one of
00:18:54 because that as i understand it one of the points you make in your witness statement is that was what you were known as within artelia you were a project manager yes um let's do that yeah let's have a look at a few examples of that if we can
00:19:05 look at a few examples of that if we can look at art four zeros eight seven 8782
00:19:13 this is an email chain between you and claire williams and peter blythe from about around march 2014 about the pre-construction agreement with ryden and if we go to the
00:19:24 agreement with ryden and if we go to the second email in the chain which is at the bottom of page one there's an email from you 27th of march at 12
00:19:32 at 12 30 and it's to claire williams it starts there claire and if we go over to the next page
00:19:39 next page you say this in the first line i'm not a lawyer so these comments are purely a recommendation as a project manager you may wish to include the following additional activities to the appendix and that's
00:19:50 and that's the appendix to the pre-construction agreement
00:19:53 agreement um so can you see here that you seem to be giving advice on describing yourself as a project manager do you see that i do
00:20:05 and did you think you were giving that advice as project manager of the grenfell tower refurbishment or as a project manager within artelia that that comment was because he was
00:20:17 that that comment was because he was asking my opinion on a legal document and i was just wanted to be clear i'm sharing my views from my professional opinion so it wasn't that i was being the
00:20:28 so it wasn't that i was being the project manager on the job i said i'm not a lawyer but these are my thoughts on and my experiences to to advise you on it
00:20:37 it yeah mr strange it won't have escaped your attention that he replied from claire williams in the next email up that's what i'm about to go to describes his guys manager exactly if we go up to the top
00:20:50 manager exactly if we go up to the top where we started it's it's not uncommon to have a client-side project manager and a consultant project manager yeah and because there are duties that you
00:21:01 and because there are duties that you know just need to be done by the client yeah yeah i think just to finish the chairman's point what we see at the very bottom of this email from her back to you is she is described as the project
00:21:12 is she is described as the project manager
00:21:13 manager just to just sort see that there can we go to another document this is art406390 these are minutes of a contractor
00:21:24 these are minutes of a contractor introduction meeting on the 1st of april 2014 and on the first page we can see that these minutes were authored by peter bly
00:21:35 these minutes were authored by peter bly then they were checked by you do you see that yes and on the first page under present um we can see your name four lines down and
00:21:46 we can see your name four lines down and you will describe there as the project manager
00:21:49 manager and peter blythe is the assistant project manager do you see that i do and then below that at point 1.2 in these minutes it says art represented
00:22:00 in these minutes it says art represented by
00:22:01 by pb philip booth will perform the role of employers agent on the project do you see that there yes so we've got slightly contradicting information here between what's in the present list at
00:22:13 between what's in the present list at the top and then what's said in the minutes
00:22:15 minutes yeah do you see that we're guilty of incorrectly representing our function in the present list
00:22:23 list yeah do you know this is the job titles sort of yeah rather than actual roles on the project so do you ever recall having a specific discussion with the tmo claire williams
00:22:35 discussion with the tmo claire williams or anyone else at the tmo in which you explained what the difference was between employers agent and project manager
00:22:46 i spent a lot of time with claire taking her through roles and responsibilities so i think over the passage of
00:22:58 so i think over the passage of the year or so that we're working together i was i did make it clear as to what my role was
00:23:05 role was what i was due to perform and what she needed to do to do so um i think i think i'd taken the time and explained the roles and responsibilities
00:23:17 explained the roles and responsibilities to her
00:23:18 to her and i think she understood them as well and she was familiar with it um she as a professional she was um
00:23:29 professional she was um she liked involving everybody in the project and so um it's fair to say as we went through she'd share things with me and others and consulted quite a lot yeah and you know is wanting to get
00:23:42 yeah and you know is wanting to get people's opinions that may well be in slightly outside our scope yeah generally um you know if it helps i'll sort of help yeah
00:23:51 yeah just one more document on this theme this is um slides presented at the bidders conference to those that were bidding for the dmb contract this is tmo 00856136
00:24:09 and if we go within these slides to page 4
00:24:15 we can see there that um claire williams is said to be project manager casey tmo and then just a little bit down your project manager artelia do you see that there
00:24:25 there yes now do you know with the bidders was the difference between your roles made clear at this meeting
00:24:34 uh not at this meeting this was a a bidders conference so this is introducing i didn't have a speaking role and this was tmo
00:24:45 speaking role and this was tmo presentation to get interested contractors uh a bit of a flavor of what the project was so that they could decide whether they go to tender or not so i think me being put up there would
00:24:56 so i think me being put up there would have
00:24:57 have been not very interesting to most of them i think when we got into the contract stage with doing the tendering and
00:25:08 with doing the tendering and ultimately with ryden as the contractor they were
00:25:11 they were very familiar that i was an employer's agent i didn't have any um you know authority to make decisions and
00:25:19 and you know they were very familiar that they needed to go to the tmo to get those sort of decisions made yeah do you know where you actually introduced as the project manager to the potential contractors at this point
00:25:32 potential contractors at this point this slide says so yeah is it possible claire williams is also using her own internal tmo job title at this point yes that's possible would you accept
00:25:46 yes that's possible would you accept that
00:25:46 that having looked at a number of these examples it's possible that other professionals on the project outside the tmo
00:25:52 tmo might have had some confusion or there might have been some confusion as to precisely what role artelia was performing i think clearly you know that you can
00:26:03 i think clearly you know that you can pick some of those documents out and you know it doesn't help it does cause confusion but i think the actual main professionals and everybody that was heavily involved in the project
00:26:14 heavily involved in the project were very clear as to artelia and my role which was as an employer's agent we've heard some moral evidence from mr bruce soon from studio e and his evidence was that
00:26:27 from studio e and his evidence was that he believed artelia was acting in a project management role he said this this is day 7 page 67 lines 13 to 17 for the transcript he said i think for the duration of the
00:26:38 he said i think for the duration of the project i'd always assumed that artelia was acting in some kind of project management role now i know that term is used loosely but if i had been asked that's what i would have said
00:26:47 have said were you ever aware during the project that studio e understood that artelia was acting as some kind of project manager
00:26:56 manager um yeah
00:27:00 um yeah obviously yes they had assumed that but were you aware of that on the project that studio e had made that assumption about you i think when i received correspondence
00:27:12 i think when i received correspondence and people calling me a project manager i don't jump on it and say i'm not that because um you know i that is my job role so um so um it wouldn't have caused me alarm
00:27:25 so um it wouldn't have caused me alarm if if bruce had thought i was doing that or
00:27:28 or or uh or wrote it in correspondence so i can understand why you might have thought that we were doing it yeah yeah let's have a look at this
00:27:39 yeah yeah let's have a look at this point at the um the contractual schedule of services that was agreed in july 2014 for the employers agent services this is art405742
00:27:51 this is art405742 if we start at page 45 we can see what we're looking at
00:27:58 so this is the part of the rics agreement the signed agreement with the tmo that set out the ea services
00:28:06 services and then if we go within this to page 48
00:28:11 we can see that certain individual services have either been crossed or not crossed setting out what our artelia's role was
00:28:22 setting out what our artelia's role was i think you confirmed you were aware of this at the time of your work as ea is that correct yes yep was this a document that you looked at frequently did you come back to this
00:28:33 at frequently did you come back to this to check
00:28:33 to check exactly what roles artelia were performing um i was familiar with it i wouldn't say i came back to it frequently um the way i operate is
00:28:45 um the way i operate is to i'm i'm familiar with the general role i need to fulfill um and if i'm asked to do things or just get on with it i'm not a sort of person who goes
00:28:57 it i'm not a sort of person who goes back no or not within my role you know um because i want to become a helpful professional yeah if we just look at the top left at 1.3.3
00:29:08 left at 1.3.3 it says there establish the roles and responsibilities of the client the professional team the contractor and specialist stroke design subcontractors and
00:29:19 stroke design subcontractors and do we take it that you understood it was one of your roles on the project to establish the roles and responsibilities of the client and professional teams yes and how did you go about doing that
00:29:32 yes and how did you go about doing that in practice so um i went first of all the project team had already been set up when i joined the project so there was already custom and practice
00:29:43 so there was already custom and practice in place and everybody sort of knew what they were doing but it would prior to me um artelia had prepared documents like the project execution plan that explained
00:29:53 explained who was performing which role and the professional team was defined and listed out we had the architect we had the services engineer and we had
00:30:04 we had the services engineer and we had the
00:30:05 the structural engineer and
00:30:10 so i think when i joined the project the team was already set up i did help and establish
00:30:21 roles and responsibilities by um
00:30:27 supporting the appointment of the other professional teams by clarifying roles and responsibilities at meetings through the minutes
00:30:38 meetings through the minutes um but this duty under as an employer's agent
00:30:43 agent is is more sort of setting up the the high level principle of who does what so the high level roles more so than going into the intricate details of specifics but we knew we had
00:30:56 details of specifics but we knew we had a client they were going to make decisions we knew we were going to do a design and build route and that there was going to be we had architects we had engineers and we had structural and
00:31:08 engineers and we had structural and mechanical electrical i think they all knew they were all familiar with being in similar projects what their roles were the only bits that were debated or talked about was at one
00:31:20 were debated or talked about was at one point there was a who's going to be the lead consultant that ultimately ended up being studio e um who was ultimately responsible for design that was studio e um yeah okay and the project
00:31:33 studio e um yeah okay and the project management bit that you talked about the last part of that um you've got to establish the roles and responsibilities of the client the professional team the contractor and then it says and specialists stroke design subcontractors
00:31:45 specialists stroke design subcontractors who would that have encompassed
00:31:49 um so this rick's appointment thing is obviously for all types of projects so there would be different specialist designers and sub contractors depending on the specifics
00:32:02 contractors depending on the specifics of a project my experience is usually they're associated with design aspects that might be pertinent to the particular project so if specialists were needed
00:32:14 project so if specialists were needed for a particular element i'd expect my lead designer the architect to say we need uh yeah one of these xy good specialists so would a good example of that have been x
00:32:26 would a good example of that have been x over where we we see studio e encouraging the appointment of x over to work on the fire strategy for the project would that have been a good example
00:32:38 good example of that kind of specialist coming in to this team
00:32:41 this team um that they were one of the specialists that yes judy did draw in and say that they think they needed one yes yeah and did you understand that your job here to establish the roles and
00:32:52 job here to establish the roles and responsibilities of the list there would have incorporated x over during their time on the grenfell project
00:33:02 so um i don't think as an employer's agent i needed i was responsible for defining the role of a specialist fire i think my mine was to
00:33:13 specialist fire i think my mine was to revolve some responsibility client and the professional team who were defined in here
00:33:17 in here as the three architects two services engineers i think it was then the specialist
00:33:28 i think it was then the specialist the professional team design team that would bring in any specialists underneath them um i didn't have in terms of ex over i didn't really i didn't have any dealings with them okay
00:33:39 dealings with them okay we'll come back to them later on as a more substantive topic but i just wanted to get your view on this now going back to the project manager role um
00:33:48 um how did you make sure everyone was clear about artelia's roles on the project
00:33:55 uh well first of all you know defining having agreed terms and conditions as to what roles we were performing introducing ourselves in
00:34:07 performing introducing ourselves in through uh meetings we know the contract terms don't come in and get signed until july 2014. that's what we're looking at here yes so prior to that do you remember
00:34:19 yes so prior to that do you remember taking any specific steps to make clear what artelia's roles and responsibilities were and were not so whilst they weren't signed these have been in circulation for a long time and
00:34:31 been in circulation for a long time and we had always even back to 2012 and before my time with
00:34:34 with you know the client was very aware we were going to be an employer's agent so um there are instances of minutes where i've talked about who the roles and responsibilities
00:34:45 about who the roles and responsibilities are
00:34:46 are where i took you know people through who was doing what um so um
00:34:53 um so um there are schedules that are produced um when we're for example getting ready to tender as to who was to provide what based upon their particular roles yeah
00:35:05 based upon their particular roles yeah at no point in the project did people come to me and say i'm not sure whose role is what or who's doing this so it wasn't an issue as far as it was
00:35:16 so it wasn't an issue as far as it was not an issue as far as i was aware okay do you ever remember taking any specific
00:35:21 specific steps to make clear the limited sense in which artelia was referring to its own staff as project manager or assistant project manager
00:35:32 or assistant project manager um can you say that again yeah did you ever take any specific steps to make clear
00:35:38 clear the limited sense in which artelia's was referring to itself as project manager or assistant project manager
00:35:47 manager um no i don't think when you're saying limited i think we just
00:35:54 just did our did our role and um there was there wasn't anything for my memory as a as a problem as to who was the project manager or not
00:36:06 manager or not now as a employer's agent just moving on to your role as employers agent and sticking with this these terms was it your role as you understood it to advise the tmo
00:36:17 advise the tmo client on what the building professionals were obliged to do contractually on the project
00:36:24 um i don't think i don't believe so no so if that wasn't artelia's role who did you understand did have that role on the
00:36:35 you understand did have that role on the project
00:36:38 so again when i came to the project most of the professional team were already in place um so sometimes that is a duty that's put
00:36:49 so sometimes that is a duty that's put on the employer's agent to assist with that
00:36:51 that but i think they didn't need it because they'd already gone about uh a point in the professional team that already been operating for some time familiar with right you
00:37:02 for some time familiar with right you know
00:37:02 know as as a client the tmo are familiar with running
00:37:06 running large construction projects and what what services and what support they need to buy in to support them and what they had in house already if a contractor was not fulfilling its
00:37:17 contractor was not fulfilling its contractual obligations was it your understanding that you were obliged to point that out yes if i if there was something that i thought somebody wasn't doing
00:37:28 thought somebody wasn't doing what they should that i've got duty of care to
00:37:32 care to raise that if i saw it yeah now at page 47
00:37:36 47 if we go back a page of this schedule of employers agent services we can see on the right hand side towards the bottom well in the second half of the page we
00:37:47 well in the second half of the page we can see that 1.2.5 if we could zoom in on that left-hand column yes that's great um 1.2.5 advised the client on specialist services including
00:37:59 specialist services including consultants contractors subcontractors and suppliers required in connection with the project that's not ticked and we can also see that 1.2.8 advise the client on the selection the terms of appointment and
00:38:11 selection the terms of appointment and fee structures that's also not ticked can you just help us what did you understand those exclusions what did they get rid of in terms of your role
00:38:23 they get rid of in terms of your role um i i think they weren't ticked because the professional team was largely appointed when we were brought on
00:38:31 on on so that wasn't a service they needed yeah now going back to the 1.3.3 that we were looking at before on the the next page
00:38:46 the next page when you were fulfilling that obligation of establishing the roles and responsibilities of and then the list um would you also identify if there was a
00:38:57 would you also identify if there was a role or responsibility that was missing
00:39:03 yes i think if if there was something obvious that we were not we didn't have um that was inhibiting the project i would raise that to the client yeah yeah and i think we heard from mr cash
00:39:15 yeah and i think we heard from mr cash yesterday that he agreed it would include identifying any gaps in services to be provided and that artelia would look to close the gaps would you agree with that yes
00:39:27 if later in the project you realize that the roles and responsibilities of the building professionals on the project had become confused would you tell the client
00:39:36 client pursuant to that obligation yes and was it your role to help spot that and help remedy it i had a role in that yes i remember
00:39:48 i had a role in that yes i remember as an example um later on in the project there was it was brought to my attention that um changes post-contract
00:40:00 that um changes post-contract claire was not sure who she's like how they should be managed and who was responsible for what so that's a good example and i remember drawing out a flow diagram that said well
00:40:11 well if if nothing's changed from the um what you tendered then nothing needs to happen if it's a mechanical electrical design
00:40:19 design change then i had a flowchart that went to max fordham would have a look at that and support you i'm going to take you to that floor in a little while so yeah i i accept that that's an example of what you were just describing
00:40:30 of what you were just describing can we look at something that that happened later in the project if we can go to art
00:40:36 go to art 406629
00:40:39 406629 this is an email from mr reed who we know succeeded you as employers agent to claire williams on the 9th of april
00:40:47 april 2015. now we know you'd left the project at this stage but this email records his perception of the project when he took over and what we can see uh is he gives a
00:41:00 and what we can see uh is he gives a numbered list so he says claire thanks for your email of yesterday suggesting a meeting to discuss artelia's fee account then the next line he wants to propose a broader meeting objective for the
00:41:11 broader meeting objective for the following reasons and then in the third sentence he says with my limited involvement to date i hold a perception that and he says one the scope of the
00:41:22 that and he says one the scope of the work that ryden is doing is not as well understood as it could be there is significant email traffic of what is considered to be in the contract and then two the roles and responsibilities of all parties
00:41:33 responsibilities of all parties do not appear as clear to me as they could be processes for resident liaison clerk of work scope architectural compliance monitoring for example
00:41:44 compliance monitoring for example now i just want to ask you some things about this email um do you agree with mr reed that as a april
00:41:51 april 2015 ryden's scope of work was not well understood that's the point he's making at point one
00:42:00 um i'm not i mean i hadn't seen this team email but um i think ryden were familiar with what
00:42:13 i think ryden were familiar with what was
00:42:14 was what they were needed to do that neil was new to the job obviously here and without a doubt there was considerable correspondence about is this included
00:42:26 correspondence about is this included do we need to do this so i i can i can see why
00:42:31 see why neil may well have felt that coming in and thinking yeah to support this a bit more did you yourself think that was a problem when you were the employer's agent
00:42:44 you were the employer's agent uh not necessarily a problem but it was something that we were constantly having to actively manage
00:42:54 i mean it's not not unusual on projects that there's this sort of level of
00:43:02 of review correspondence i think it was exasperated a little bit by um
00:43:11 there were quite a lot of client changes post contract and i think uh that was adding to the number of queries and everything
00:43:22 everything so usually when you go out if you go out to tender on saying this is what i want then that's what you want you don't change lots of things afterwards yeah and when he says the scope of the
00:43:33 yeah and when he says the scope of the work that ryden is doing is not well understood as well understood as it could be i appreciate you didn't write this but did you understand at the time that tmo wasn't understanding
00:43:44 wasn't understanding the scope of work that ryden was doing or was it right in itself not understanding the role it was performing the scope of its work
00:43:56 um i don't know i can only my experience of the project when i was in charge was largely that um this was around
00:44:10 i think ryder knew what they were doing but they there was a lot of changes going on
00:44:18 going on and that was resource hungry um to manage those changes as well as developing the design on from when they took
00:44:26 took they had it at um sort of design yeah a tender stage to take it then through to construction it was it was it was complicated and what about point two he says the roles
00:44:38 what about point two he says the roles and responsibilities of all parties did not appear as clear to me as they could be
00:44:42 be and then he gives some examples and i just want to pick up on a couple of them he's got
00:44:46 he's got cow scope clerk of work scope he says is not as clear as they could be had you detected that there was a difficulty in terms of
00:44:57 difficulty in terms of the understanding of the scope of works by the clerk of works my experience of the clerk works with they were a direct appointment by tmo to check
00:45:08 tmo to check compliance and buildability quality so it was there was a you know what was their role um
00:45:19 you know what was their role um i can understand that being a question when i was in in in the role of his employer's agent uh they
00:45:26 they were reporting to the tmo saying we went on this
00:45:29 on this date we found these things and the report was being issued to them and i accepted those reports and was a sort of vehicle to take them up with ryden if there was a you know you need to fix this or you
00:45:40 you know you need to fix this or you need to fix that yeah and it was as simple as that but we didn't get as artelia we didn't really get involved in forming that scope of what they were due to do
00:45:49 due to do i saw uh clarke works was really an extra comfort level for the tmo and extra reporting and compliance check-in for them yeah that we could use as
00:46:01 for them yeah that we could use as employers agent to pass on and just to be absolutely clear the clerk of works you talked about compliance checking do you mean compliance say with the building regulations was that your understanding that they
00:46:13 was that your understanding that they were checking for that yes and then we've got architectural compliance monitoring as another example that he's given
00:46:23 given again during your time on the project were you ever aware of any problem with architectural compliance monitoring
00:46:33 um
00:46:38 i didn't not not i didn't think it was uh there was a problem i re i remember on the project that um we spent some time um
00:46:52 um we spent some time um with the tmo defining um there was a client design advisor role that we put forward as our teller at one point
00:47:03 put forward as our teller at one point and that sat with them a long time before they decided not to take it forward and we i did spend some time with um
00:47:11 with um claire and others making sure they um understood that um if they didn't have that then they would be taken on that role
00:47:23 be taken on that role so that i think that's what that means by architectural compliance monitoring did you ever establish a matrix of design responsibility on the project
00:47:33 project were you aware that anyone else artelia did that
00:47:40 so
00:47:43 i i believe just generally through the roles and responsibilities and by preparing the tender and things like that we we did divide up who is responsible for what if you were to call it a detailed matrix
00:47:56 if you were to call it a detailed matrix say for the design of the project setting out for each element of the works who had the design responsibility where it sat did you ever do that kind of matrix i did not i don't believe
00:48:06 believe are you familiar with such a matrix have you ever seen them on other projects um yes i have did anyone ever give any consideration to establishing such a design matrix on
00:48:18 design matrix on the grenfell project i think that the design team knew the roles that they were performing so it wasn't something that felt was required i mean when i this
00:48:31 was required i mean when i this project we didn't have a large number of um designers when i was pre-contract it was you know very clear there was an architect a mechanical electrical
00:48:43 architect a mechanical electrical engineer
00:48:44 engineer and a structural engineer and they are familiar with their roles and responsibilities and then post-contract all design responsibility is with ryden
00:48:55 all design responsibility is with ryden so i didn't think a matrix was needed okay can we just go back to the schedule of services for the employers agent back to art 405742 on page 48 and i want to look at
00:49:09 on page 48 and i want to look at tick box 1.4.1 in that left column it's further down the page
00:49:17 the page yeah there we have it so there we can see
00:49:20 see it has been ticked that artelia should prepare and maintain a project execution plan
00:49:25 plan or similar management tool identifying the roles and responsibilities of the client
00:49:29 client the professional team the contractor and specialist subcontractor stroke suppliers
00:49:34 suppliers and then establish review approval variation and reporting procedures and prepare recommendations for the client's approval now do you agree
00:49:45 now do you agree that the role of employers agent on the project included an obligation to create a project execution plan or similar management tool that set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the parties on the
00:49:57 responsibilities of the parties on the project
00:49:59 project yes and do you agree that this would include establishing the review approval variation and reporting procedures on the project yes to the best of your knowledge was
00:50:11 yes to the best of your knowledge was any such plan or tool ever created and then monitored so there were project execution plans prepared um and various situations before my time on
00:50:24 and various situations before my time on the project and then subsequently as we work through the project
00:50:31 the various elements of the project execution plan and roles were clarified by other other documents whether it be the actual appointment documents or whether it be
00:50:43 whether it be through minutes or you know the flow diagram i talked about earlier was you know establishing how variations would be done it's been this project i spent quite a lot of time actually
00:50:54 lot of time actually going through the the roles and responsibilities and how particularly post-contract variations would be managed yeah and there were there was that flow
00:51:05 and there were there was that flow diagram i did which spelt out the roles clearly talking it through with everybody so they they knew yeah um and there were trackers that were tracking changes that were
00:51:16 were tracking changes that were put forward with the dates of who needed to approve what so that's how i feel with discharge that duty of myself we can see that this responsibility here is to prepare and maintain a project
00:51:28 is to prepare and maintain a project execution plan and as you say and i'll take you to it in a minute there was a project execution plan from november 2012
00:51:37 2012 but in terms of maintaining it did you yourself ever revisit that project execution plan and refresh it particularly after the dmv contractors appointed and as you say
00:51:49 dmv contractors appointed and as you say then you've got a different set of roles and responsibilities i i didn't update the project execution plan later on
00:51:58 on um usually yeah it's written at the beginning
00:52:02 beginning it's an execution like to start off with usually
00:52:05 usually in projects so that everybody understands what's the project who's doing what yeah and you can go back and keep changing it and that would
00:52:16 that would be good to do and but i felt we had when we got to the various stages in the project it was documented in other vehicles not
00:52:28 it was documented in other vehicles not the projects the execution plan through minutes through uh meetings we're talking it through i felt everybody understood the different roles and responsibilities i didn't i didn't go
00:52:39 responsibilities i didn't i didn't go back enough you didn't consolidate it in one place no
00:52:44 no let's just look at that plan this is the last version of the plan we can find this is
00:52:50 art408445
00:52:58 now if we go on a page we think this is dated the 6th of november 2012. uh if we look at page 3 we can see there the date at the top
00:53:10 we can see there the date at the top right and we can see that it's authored by david hale and checked and approved by
00:53:15 by alan dawson and i just want to look at a few pages within it if we could look at page 10
00:53:27 here we can see a section for roles and responsibilities and we can see that the project manager there is said to be mark anderson
00:53:38 there is said to be mark anderson of the tmo do you see that there yes he's said to have day-to-day project management of the the project and if we look at the bottom of that page
00:53:50 control under contractor and nevada design team we can see that some of it is tb to be confirmed
00:53:57 confirmed post construction services do you see that there tpa to be advised but as you say we have some of them some of the consultants already appointed
00:54:08 of the consultants already appointed um and then if we look on at page 11
00:54:15 if we look at the top of that page we can see that this says lead consultant employers agent alan dawson
00:54:23 dawson overall coordination and control and then qs
00:54:27 then qs tweet in limb cdm coordinator now that that would have been superseded wouldn't it in that studio e took on the lead consultant role didn't they yes and we can see here there's a box
00:54:40 yes and we can see here there's a box for
00:54:41 for sorry before we leave the top box we can see we've got fire safety surveyor terry ashton is named in this project execution plan isn't he as one of the client advisors do you see that
00:54:53 of the client advisors do you see that yes and we can see in the box below that the clerk of works is tba to be advised is that right yes so would you agree with me that this
00:55:04 so would you agree with me that this this is quite an early stage and what could have happened is we've refreshed this as the project went on to make clear exactly who was engaged and what their responsibilities were
00:55:16 responsibilities were yes
00:55:19 and then if we just look briefly at page 15
00:55:29 we can see there is some there are some sections here that deal with design changes and there's there's discussion of a change control procedure that's set out here did you ever come to
00:55:41 that's set out here did you ever come to look at that the change control procedure that was set out in this document i was familiar with it yeah and we can see design development change is dealt with in a heading at the bottom of that
00:55:54 with in a heading at the bottom of that um and it says for all changes just below the bullet points for all changes the design team are required requested to maintain a log of all changes arising to their individual
00:56:05 changes arising to their individual drawings
00:56:06 drawings do you know if any such log was ever maintained
00:56:12 um usually yeah anytime a designer like an architect or whatever changes a drawing they a new version is created and on the side
00:56:25 a new version is created and on the side of the drawing it says the date and what was changed yeah that and then there's drawing issue sheets that are issued out that say who it's been issued to and was that something that you ever looked at and checked that it was being done
00:56:37 and checked that it was being done properly
00:56:38 properly um i saw the changes coming through as the design was developed but did you ever check that log um well the log
00:56:50 um well the log whenever drawings were issued to me they usually come with a drawing issue sheet and the log will be on the side so i think yes and then at page 16 we get some
00:57:00 some general descriptions of quality management procedures we can see under quality the consultant team will adhere to qa
00:57:11 the consultant team will adhere to qa procedures of which this document is a part
00:57:14 part um and then it says under quality control the consultant team shall be responsible for the quality of their own work
00:57:20 work and then the tma will appoint a clerk of works to undertake quality assurance checks do you see that there yes it's quite brief about quality management isn't it this document yes but um an execution plan is
00:57:33 yes but um an execution plan is is quite high level usually at the beginning
00:57:37 beginning i think um so i wouldn't be alarmed by it being short okay now you mentioned before um this point about the client design advisor role and i now want to ask you
00:57:48 advisor role and i now want to ask you some questions about that um can we go first to art four zeros two triple one
00:57:59 these are the final contract preliminaries which were prepared for the oju
00:58:04 the oju tender process for the main construction work
00:58:08 work okay um were you familiar at least in in outline with these contract preliminaries so thuy chen wrote these and
00:58:20 so thuy chen wrote these and pulled them together yeah but they are yes
00:58:24 yes there's a there's a piece of software that puts this all together yeah i didn't write them but i'm familiar with them yeah if we look on page five at the bottom of the page i want to look at clause 195a
00:58:38 i want to look at clause 195a we can see there there's reference to a client technical advisor architectural and it says name to be appointed do you see that there yes is the client technical advisor in
00:58:49 yes is the client technical advisor in this document the same as what was also referred to on the project as a client design advisor i think there's similar roles yes yeah and is it right that artelia and the tmo both envisaged
00:59:02 that artelia and the tmo both envisaged that a client design advisor would be appointed to advise on architectural design issues during the project
00:59:12 i think so yeah i mean it's not always the case
00:59:17 the case in because it depends on you know the complexity of the project
00:59:27 yeah so you don't always have a technical advisor often it is performed by the client themselves i see depending on how much support they feel they need
00:59:37 they need but when ryden received this would you agree that they might have expected such a client technical advisor or client design advisor to be appointed yes to your knowledge was that role
00:59:49 yes to your knowledge was that role of client design advisor discussed with the tmo when these preliminaries were drawn up
00:59:59 i i don't know i don't think it was perhaps uh i don't recall it being a big subject matter that was talked about at that time
01:00:08 time but i do know that dmo we took we spent a lot of time going through the tender and what was included and what was going on you know days
01:00:19 what was going on you know days of um taken through it so i don't recall that particular bit being a large part but it wasn't short after the tender that i think we gave them the proposal
01:00:29 proposal yeah i think they've been familiar just to complete what was in the the tender documents if we look at the um
01:00:35 um go to page 36 now top of the page at clause 158a there's their reference again to the client technical advisor and it says
01:00:46 client technical advisor and it says meaning client technical advisor is to advise client on contractors proposals and architectural services issues do you see that there i do and then
01:00:57 then if we look at page 40 at the top of the page at clause 650 we can see a number of tasks
01:01:04 of tasks for the client technical advisor that are set out in these preliminaries with regard to
01:01:09 regard to here the tasks relating to drawings and we can see at clause 650a that the client technical advisor will review the fabrication and shop drawings do you see that there
01:01:22 and shop drawings do you see that there yes
01:01:25 yes and if we look at paragraph five on this page it says all clearance of contractors drawings shall be given by the client
01:01:37 drawings shall be given by the client technical advisor clearance of drawings or materials for manufacture and works derived there from mean the permission of the client technical advisor to proceed do you see that there yes now at this stage and given what
01:01:50 yes now at this stage and given what we've just seen in these contract preliminaries if that had been then followed through and someone appointed to that role would they have advised on all of ryden's drawings or only some of them
01:02:05 um i think they would have been primarily focused on drawings that were a change from the employer's
01:02:16 were a change from the employer's requirements that's usually how that role is the client design advisor support role is but uh
01:02:24 is but uh any drawings issued by the contractor who is designed to contract i'd expect the client advisor to have had a review of yes in that role but primarily it's to support
01:02:35 but primarily it's to support changes from what was asked for in the employer's requirements tender stage to what was actually being proposed as an altered alternative
01:02:46 being proposed as an altered alternative yes i understand yes um would it have also included advising on subcontractor drawings such as harley
01:02:55 as harley the external wall subcontractor might have included looking at subcontractor drawings as well as any drawings from the main contractor yes yeah
01:03:05 yes yeah they would have had to have come through the
01:03:09 the main contractor so i think there's a duty for you know the the main contractor that was ryden to sort of coordinate what the design amongst all of their
01:03:20 the design amongst all of their designers yeah and then issue them to the client or the client design advisor as a as a package for a review yeah and what about changes to specifications for example as a result
01:03:31 specifications for example as a result of a
01:03:32 of a value engineering exercise would you have expected this client technical advisor to have advised on any changes to the materials in the specifications they would yes
01:03:49 it appears from these preliminaries that the client technical advisor would quote clear drawings or materials there's reference to clearance in both sub-paragraphs five and six
01:04:00 and six on that page um can you just help us as to what
01:04:05 to what it would be expected that this person would check for in such a clearance process i interpret that as so the client design advisor or the client has no design
01:04:17 advisor or the client has no design responsibility they're not drawing it or specifying it they are
01:04:22 they are saying yes i accept that what you're proposing as a change is acceptable as in it is a comparable to what we asked for in the employer's
01:04:33 what we asked for in the employer's requirements or um it's a client change request so that the clearance i think would encompass not only yes we would
01:04:45 would encompass not only yes we would like that's okay with that change i think that there is a duty of
01:04:49 duty of checking that
01:04:53 conforms but really i think the main design responsibility sits on the contractor that's proposing it so they they are ultimately responsible for the design um this is more of a a check-in and a
01:05:06 um this is more of a a check-in and a clearance not responsibility yeah now if we move forward then um as to what happened about the client design advisor if we go to art 408591 this is an email from you
01:05:19 408591 this is an email from you to simon cash on the 10th of january 2014 and you say you say this you say claire wishes for us to put forward a proposal for the cda role
01:05:29 role as the custodian of free proposals and scopes please can i ask you to do this i know they're considering others one-man bands but they have pi concerns do you see that there
01:05:40 pi concerns do you see that there yes can you just help us what discussion did you have with claire williams at this time about the cda role um it doesn't register as a strong memory
01:05:52 it doesn't register as a strong memory um of mine but i think she you know reading that she she was recognising that she may need some support and wanted us to when she was considering others and she wanted artelia to put forward a
01:06:04 and she wanted artelia to put forward a proposal to fulfill that role yeah can you recall actually positively encouraging claire williams in the tmo to appoint a client
01:06:14 client design advisor on this project i i certainly um
01:06:22 made her aware of our proposal and felt that it was something that um if she didn't take up um then she needed to understand what
01:06:34 um then she needed to understand what she was taking on as responsibility yeah so
01:06:37 so i was i think i think maybe you could describe that as encouraging yes was it your view at the time that this job needed a client design advisor to be
01:06:48 job needed a client design advisor to be appointed
01:06:50 appointed um
01:06:54 it comes down to
01:06:57 resource levels and of client and how much support they feel they they need it isn't a role that's regularly involved in
01:07:08 a role that's regularly involved in projects
01:07:11 it is definitely a more complicated design and build projects when the client wants that reassurance and support from a from a professional yeah
01:07:23 but um so i think it was more of a client as a decision as to they need that support or not
01:07:31 not yeah that's because i i understand that entirely but i think you said earlier that
01:07:35 that you agreed that the grenfell project was quite a complex project in terms of what they were seeking to do you've got an occupied building it's quite an old building you're trying to add things on to
01:07:46 you're trying to add things on to existing services you're over cladding it you're restructuring the lower floors and i just want to ask you again if if someone had come up to you at this time
01:07:57 someone had come up to you at this time and said do you think this project needs a client design advisor what would you have said
01:08:03 i think i would have said that yes it needs one but um the tmo had a massive team some of them were architects some of them were
01:08:15 architects some of them were fire engineers so i wasn't um concerned when they
01:08:18 when they said we'll take it on ourselves okay yeah so let's look at the client design advisor proposal you then put it forward this is art406279
01:08:33 and it's dated february 2014.
01:08:42 we can see that proposal there this is the front page and the date at the bottom and then we if we go to page six and look at the top of the page
01:08:53 top of the page paragraph 3.1 we can see that artely is saying there that
01:08:59 that they've performed this role on other similar projects including the calc project that's right isn't it yes were you yourself involved at all with the calc project
01:09:10 the calc project no no and then down under scheme design in the middle of this page there's mention of a design compliance report
01:09:22 report so it as part of this proposal it says we will provide a design compliance report at pre-contract award stage following a review of the construction or contractors proposals and endeavour to ensure that they meet the employers requirements nbs
01:09:34 the employers requirements nbs specifications british and european standards as well as all statutory and planning requirements do you see that there yes so is it right that this role would have included checking the contractor's proposals for compliance with the
01:09:45 proposals for compliance with the building regulations
01:09:51 i think so yes yeah and would you have expected that to have also included checking for compliance with
01:09:58 with the statutory practical guidance for example in something like a pre-document b
01:10:02 b on fire safety
01:10:06 yes would you have expected that exercise to pick up the extent to which the employer's requirements themselves including the ends but nbs specification
01:10:18 including the ends but nbs specification were not compliant with the building regulations do you think that's something that this role would have picked up um
01:10:28 possibly yes i mean i i didn't write this
01:10:32 this and um this was written by um you know one of our architects at uh artelia that's familiar with performing that roles yes it's richmond harding yeah so yes
01:10:45 yes it's richmond harding yeah so yes from my
01:10:46 from my understanding i think that would have been picked up and then the next paragraph it says once the contract is let we will review detailed drawings as they are produced to ensure the works proposed
01:10:58 to ensure the works proposed continue to meet the employers requirements do you see that there yes um
01:11:06 yes um and in terms of the extent of the advice that artelia was proposing a cda might give is it right that any cda would not have advised on m e elements
01:11:19 so um
01:11:23 not within this proposal because at the arrangement here was that max fordham were retained by the client themselves so they were reviewing the mechanical and electrical elements yeah
01:11:36 mechanical and electrical elements yeah and it was the architectural elements that
01:11:38 that um yeah tmo didn't did not have a retained
01:11:42 retained professional to comment on that's why this was just on the architectural aspects yeah i understand now i appreciate you said earlier that a client design advisor isn't appointed for
01:11:53 for for all projects yeah um but in your opinion would it be standard or usual to appoint such a person on a project like this on a refurb project
01:12:03 project such as grenfell um it's not unusual it also comes down to client you know the level of trust placed in a
01:12:14 trust placed in a in the design and build contractor because this is a checking role so they don't have any design responsibilities it's really just checking
01:12:22 checking have are the lead design the people that's responsible for design complying the responsibility for compliance still sits with the designers so i think that's that's why this this
01:12:33 so i think that's that's why this this role
01:12:35 role it comes down to how competent the client is and how how much that they're likely to receive on a project
01:12:46 project that will require their comment in terms of changes yeah um yeah but on a project like this that when underwent quite a significant value engineering exercise
01:12:57 engineering exercise was that perhaps another reason why a client design advisor would be a good idea
01:13:02 idea yes i think that's fair to say now if we go
01:13:06 go on in the chronology to art 406523 this is an email from you to simon cash dated the 4th of february 2014.
01:13:21 and in the third paragraph of this email you say
01:13:24 you say please also see a cda proposal prepared by ishmael for your consideration we wanted to ensure that there was a clear definition between what i am doing as ea and what rishma will do i have reviewed
01:13:37 and what rishma will do i have reviewed the ea scope of services as submitted and signed off responsibility under the ea services only refers to preparing and maintaining a handover report
01:13:47 report 1.5.9 and issue instructions on behalf of the client 1.1.2 now where you're referring to sign off responsibility there
01:13:59 can you just help us as to what you mean sign off responsibility under the ea services is that signing off design work what is that
01:14:10 [Music] um i remember this because um claire was williams was our you know wanting to make sure
01:14:22 make sure was was there responsibilities from an employer's agent to sign off and approve
01:14:28 approve like drawings and things like that and i was saying no there isn't um that's not included in employers agent scope of services so
01:14:41 scope of services so that's where we then needed to put the cda proposal together and this was me just internally with simon everyone just just checking that was really clear so that when claire received it she
01:14:54 so that when claire received it she could see
01:14:56 could see that's phillip's role and that there's no duplication and she's not paying twice for what the cda proposal was yeah if we just pick up your witness
01:15:07 yeah if we just pick up your witness statement at this point this is your second witness statement page two so that's art four zeros nine four two zero
01:15:14 zero and i want to look at what you say at paragraph seven so you say this i wanted to ensure that there could be no question about whether the cda proposal was an offer of new services from artelia that were not currently covered
01:15:26 artelia that were not currently covered by our existing obligations existing employment employers agent obligations from my review of the scope of artelia's ea services under the project
01:15:37 project i was clear that that was the case the cda role would have involved artelia considering design on the project
01:15:45 project this is why it would have been carried out by ishmael harding a qualified architect
01:15:50 architect artelia's existing appointment as ea qs and cdmc
01:15:55 and cdmc expressly provided that artelia was not responsible for design accordingly the services offered by artelia under the cda proposal were new ones
01:16:03 ones and not covered by its existing appointment i believe that miss williams understood this do you see that there yes
01:16:13 now in this statement you mentioned a review of the scope of the ea services what did that review comprise were you just looking at the the schedule of ea services we've
01:16:25 the the schedule of ea services we've taken you to yeah me going back to um from the sort of query from claire as to say well you're going to sign off some of these designs or review these and my response being more no i've
01:16:38 and my response being more no i've wanted to
01:16:39 wanted to check that that was in accordance with what we tipped in the ea services so it was just my internal review did you consider at this point the obligations of the cdm
01:16:52 at this point the obligations of the cdm coordinator in in any such scope review so did you take into account the extent to which artelia would in its role as cdm coordinator perhaps have some responsibility for
01:17:05 have some responsibility for ensuring that designers were of an appropriate competence were organized organizing themselves in the right way doing the right risk assessments did you take that into account
01:17:16 take that into account i don't remember taking that into account no the cdm is not it's different to a cda there's a lot of acronyms isn't it but um cdm is more around making sure
01:17:28 um cdm is more around making sure the works are carried out safely and then
01:17:31 then at the end information is handed over so the client can look after the building and maintain it appropriately it doesn't my understanding that role is
01:17:42 it doesn't my understanding that role is that
01:17:43 that they don't do design reviews like what was being queried by claire yeah i understand in your mind is there ever any crossover of roles between the
01:17:55 ever any crossover of roles between the cdm coordinator and a client design advisor
01:18:00 um i've not come across that no okay they're called something different now as well and did you ever explain to claire williams that in your opinion
01:18:12 williams that in your opinion the the cda role was truly additional to your employer's agent role yes it was separate did you ever explain to claire williams
01:18:24 did you ever explain to claire williams that you yourself as employers agent could not perform a role like the client design advisor role the cda role did you ever say that to her i did
01:18:38 did you ever explain to her the importance of appointing a cda on a project like grenfell
01:18:47 i spent some time with her taking her through our proposal and why i thought she should have it and there was [Music]
01:18:59 [Music] she was wanting to understand it a bit better and she also
01:19:06 also wanted to sort of understand what things they might be needing to review particularly when uh the point of the project where it was in terms of how far the design had
01:19:18 in terms of how far the design had gone and she was very clear that she felt that
01:19:23 felt that the tmo with their experience and expertise
01:19:26 expertise they didn't need this extra support and services they had the knowledge within their own organization and they
01:19:34 and they could do it themselves and did not need the
01:19:37 the additional fees or the support that we were offering yeah now we know that it took the tmo um some six months after this proposal was made
01:19:48 was made to respond to it do you know why it took them so long were you ever given an explanation for that
01:19:58 um i think
01:20:03 it just took that long because um at the time from the february that we issued it um we were still in the tender stage
01:20:14 were still in the tender stage so there was nothing to for the cda to to review
01:20:18 to review because we were going through the tender exercise and we didn't actually um get that completed and i think until later in the sort of easter time till ryden came on board
01:20:29 till ryden came on board so it came more to the forefront of them needing to make a decision later on that summer when actually now contractors proposals were starting to come through for them to consider so it wasn't a role that was needed in
01:20:41 so it wasn't a role that was needed in february but we were trying to plan it ahead yeah i see i think that's why it took so long yeah and they were also as a tmo um you know budget as you can clearly see
01:20:52 you know budget as you can clearly see was a key consideration on this project and they
01:20:55 and they were not wanting to necessarily incur additional fees so i think that's why it sort of sat in for consideration later yeah did they expressly say that to you we don't want to incur the additional
01:21:07 we don't want to incur the additional fees
01:21:07 fees well uh yes they were very much about do we need this role uh you know it's 30 grand or whatever it was yeah yes yeah can we
01:21:18 whatever it was yeah yes yeah can we just look at a set of minutes this is a rt402752
01:21:23 rt402752 so we've gone forward in time now to the 19th of august 2014 this is progress meeting number two and we can see you were present at this meeting from the list
01:21:34 meeting from the list on that first page and if we can go to the second page of this these minutes item 3.1 it says there we've got a minute
01:21:47 it says there we've got a minute cw to appoint a client design advisor so claire williams to appoint a client design
01:21:51 design design advisor
01:21:55 and then we've got a post-meeting note cw advised that the tmo will perform the role of the cda in-house they will therefore need to sign off all design do you see that there yes so it appears
01:22:07 do you see that there yes so it appears that there was some discussion of this at the meeting and then a post-meeting note is added afterwards saying the tmo decided to do it in-house can you remember what was discussed at
01:22:19 can you remember what was discussed at the meeting about this role i i remember um talking to claire her asking me you know do we need this what
01:22:29 what um what will this role include um what sort of things am i are they likely to be reviewing and
01:22:40 are they likely to be reviewing and um taking her through that she went away they had to think about it um and she decided afterwards that's why we put it as a post meeting note that they could do it themselves
01:22:51 they could do it themselves yeah it was yeah that was that's what i remember yeah now in your witness statement this is your second witness statement paragraph 12. um you say you remember
01:23:03 paragraph 12. um you say you remember telling claire williams that if the tma was going to take on the role it would need to sign off future designs that right you said that to her yeah so again change is proposed
01:23:15 yeah so again change is proposed there's no design responsibility but they'd need to say yes we're happy with that to proceed so the checking role still but they would need to agree it i couldn't as employers agent and you
01:23:26 i couldn't as employers agent and you say also that you did not say that cladding would be excluded from that that's your memory again no
01:23:31 again no i definitely did not say cladding would be excluded yeah i think and again i don't know i'm not clear but i think she was reassured by the fact that obviously there were specialist cladding advisors
01:23:43 specialist cladding advisors coming in and that there were warranties product warranties and product guarantees that come with accounting yeah and i said well yes that is true but you all still need to sign it off
01:23:56 but you all still need to sign it off and she was reassured by having those extra checks and balance yeah great mr taran i think that's a good moment i'm halfway through this topic but
01:24:05 topic but well we can um probably better definitely have a good time yeah mr booth we're going to have a short break now we'll come back at um 20 to 4 and uh i'd ask you again not
01:24:16 20 to 4 and uh i'd ask you again not talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room of course all right we'd like to go to the usher please
01:24:35 right 20 to 4 please thank you
01:47:53 would you ask mr booth to come back in
01:48:02 please
01:48:11 right mr booth are you feeling okay uh yes i'm fine thank you all right if you have a problem just indicate thank you someone's very kind of give me some paracetamol that's good exchange thank you yes so carrying on
01:48:25 exchange thank you yes so carrying on with the client design advisor story can we now go to art 406464
01:48:31 406464 i want to look at the bottom of page two
01:48:38 there we see 29th of august 2014 at five o'clock in the afternoon there's an email
01:48:44 an email to you and peter blythe and she says last tuesday we talked about the appointment of a design advisor and the likelihood that this did not particularly apply to cladding and
01:48:55 not particularly apply to cladding and animate
01:48:55 animate elements which were designed and under guarantee
01:48:59 guarantee upon discussion most of the design concerns were over the new build areas ie the flats nursery and boxing club i've spoken to david gibson and we are going to see if we can manage this within the tmo as we
01:49:10 we can manage this within the tmo as we are very familiar with the specifications for social housing we will monitor how this is working as presumably all proposals for comment will have a respond by date can you please send any design proposals
01:49:21 can you please send any design proposals to myself cc david gibson so this is her rejection of that client design advisor proposal that's correct isn't it yes and just looking at what she says
01:49:34 yes and just looking at what she says had you had a discussion about that role likely not applying to cladding and m e elements which were designed and under guarantee
01:49:46 no i don't i i did not say to her that cladding would be excluded um as i said before i think she was taking assurances from the fact
01:49:57 she was taking assurances from the fact that
01:49:58 that some packages would come with product and warranties and guarantees and the clatton was one of those the m e very clearly wouldn't sit within the cda role because she had max ford and supporting her um but the cladding
01:50:11 supporting her um but the cladding um you know would be something that she would have to you know has it been changed she would have to
01:50:19 have to review and comment on there's been lots of
01:50:26 reviews and considerations of various types of cladding on this project by by this time yeah so you don't agree that that's something that you suggested that it didn't
01:50:37 you suggested that it didn't particularly apply to cladding no in fact quite the reverse i think i was almost saying look this is area that whilst you might know social housing and what the appropriate thing is for a
01:50:50 and what the appropriate thing is for a kitchen or whatever you know you know i'm saying you if you had a client design advisor then they'll be able to support you in everything if you if you accept it as yourself as a responsibility then
01:51:03 yourself as a responsibility then you'll have to do everything bar m elements and do you recall specifically highlighting the cladding in that discussion with her as an example yeah as a memory i have that yes yeah
01:51:14 yeah as a memory i have that yes yeah the next part in that first paragraph she says upon discussion most of the design concerns were over the new build areas i.e flats nursery and boxing club again was that something you'd discussed and said to her or was that something that was
01:51:28 or was that something that was new to you when you got this email no so um the the um the area that there was most design
01:51:39 the area that there was most design happening was the area that new facilities were being created so the lower levels yeah um in the actual flats themselves there wasn't a great deal of design required because it was you know new
01:51:51 required because it was you know new heating and windows so i think i i did have a conversation with her around okay and you may well that was where a lot of the change was around what the what those lower levels would
01:52:02 what the what those lower levels would be yeah so um and she she was comfortable with taking on that responsibility because she felt that was within her you know
01:52:14 that was within her you know area of expertise yeah and we can see in that second paragraph she says that she's spoken to david gibson and we're going to see if we can manage this as we are very familiar with the specifications for social housing
01:52:26 specifications for social housing um were you of the view when you read that email that being familiar with the specifications for social housing was a relevant consideration in terms of whether to appoint a cda on the project
01:52:38 whether to appoint a cda on the project it would it would help fulfilling that role yes
01:52:41 role yes because so that would be a relevant consideration in your view yes
01:52:50 and then in your witness statement your first witness statement at paragraph 148 on page 44 you say it was your impression that the tmo considered they were better
01:53:02 that the tmo considered they were better placed to take on the role as they were informed about residents needs and the internal specifications for the flats
01:53:10 flats did you agree with the tma's view that they were better placed to act as client design advisor so they were certainly better placed to understand the needs of their residents because they work with
01:53:22 their residents because they work with them all the time and artelia cda wouldn't have that level of
01:53:27 of understanding same with boxing club and things like that so yeah i agree that they were well placed to
01:53:36 to review those those elements that they would be reviewing against if they were proposing a particular thing
01:53:43 thing you know change to the spec of the boxing room yeah some club showers or something i don't know then they they'd be closer to that but again that expertise wouldn't apply to all of it would it
01:53:55 wouldn't apply to all of it would it including the over cladding uh true yes yeah
01:54:02 did you think at the time that claire williams or david gibson's skills were comparable with ishmael harding's skills when it came to assessing compliance of a design with the building
01:54:13 compliance of a design with the building regulations for example
01:54:18 i'm not sure they're entirely the same but i felt that the tmo as a collective were had a the skill set to do to do the uh
01:54:29 uh to do the role i see you mean across the individuals that they had within the organization yes so they had their own um you know fire officers their own health and safety
01:54:39 safety um offices their own team that reviewed you know specs and uh drawings and refurbishments elsewhere on their estate so yeah i was assured they could do the
01:54:51 so yeah i was assured they could do the role
01:54:51 role can we look at what claire williams has said about this in her witness statement if we go to tmo two zeros eight five three six nine seven
01:55:00 seven and i want to look on page seven at paragraph
01:55:04 paragraph 32
01:55:10 so i just want to look at the first five lines of what she says here she says specifically as described in detail above artelia were already providing services as cdmc employers agent and quantity
01:55:21 as cdmc employers agent and quantity surveyor
01:55:22 surveyor the cdmc role included taking reasonable steps to ensure that the designers complied with their duties and then she quotes
01:55:29 quotes something from the cdm regulations 2015. and then she says furthermore in artelia's form of appointment they confirmed themselves to be designers do you see that there
01:55:40 designers do you see that there yes i think that's a designer in terms of cdm wrecks not designer in terms of design responsibility yeah and then she said in addition to artelia ryden had ultimate
01:55:52 artelia ryden had ultimate responsibility under the design and build contract having also directly appointed studio e um
01:55:58 um but in terms of what she says in that first paragraph she seems to be saying that
01:56:02 that because of the services that artelia were already providing that was a reason not to appoint the cdmc role
01:56:10 cdmc role and and i'm interested was that a view she ever expressed to you when you were on the project um she certainly sought um clarification as to from
01:56:24 clarification as to from artelia as to are we doing design reviews as part of cdmc and i said
01:56:32 said no yeah that's not that role
01:56:37 so the opinion in your last question you referred to not appointing uh artelia to the cdmc role did you mean sorry i meant
01:56:48 did you mean sorry i meant i meant yeah yeah i meant the cda role apologies yeah yeah could correct that yeah i think you understood my question no i did yeah okay yeah
01:57:00 my question no i did yeah okay yeah um did she ever say to you well we don't need the cda role because some of that's already covered by your existing appointments did she ever say that to you um conversations like that happened
01:57:14 um conversations like that happened and i told her why that was an incorrect assumption to make yeah so you didn't agree with that correct it wasn't adversarial
01:57:26 correct it wasn't adversarial it was just uh clarifying what was cut already covered under artelia's appointment yeah and if we look down at what she says now at paragraphs 33 and 34
01:57:38 says now at paragraphs 33 and 34 33 she says for these reasons the tmo concluded that the scope of services that artelia offered as cda were already provided under other appointments it did not see the justification in the role
01:57:50 justification in the role did not apply to specialist areas of construction such as cladding and then she says in hindsight i wish that the tmo had been made the position outlined above clearer to
01:58:01 the position outlined above clearer to artely i think she means in hindsight i wish the tmo had made the position
01:58:05 position outlined above clearer to artelia reiterating that we expected them to fulfill the full duties of a cdmc and employers agent rather than simply
01:58:16 and employers agent rather than simply stating we would take the cda role what is clear is we had every appointment in place under the cdn regulations required by law so she seems to be saying that
01:58:28 so she seems to be saying that there was somehow that by saying they didn't want the cda role somehow she missed an opportunity to tell you that they wanted the full duties of a cdmc
01:58:39 cdmc and an employer's agent do you understand that no so we were employers agent and cdmc and they had appointed everybody that
01:58:51 and they had appointed everybody that they needed to under cdm regulations you don't have to have a client design advisor there's no requirement to have one um
01:59:02 requirement to have one um that yeah does that answer your question i think so yes and just to be clear it wasn't your position that you could make up for the lack of a cda role by fulfilling fuller duties of a cdmc an
01:59:16 by fulfilling fuller duties of a cdmc an employer's agent is that right correct yeah and i think i went to some lengths to try and describe that
01:59:23 that to her and explain that to her and it was documented in the client design advisor role how it was different
01:59:32 different you said you went to great lengths was that because she wasn't understanding the point you think um or was there something else going on um i think it was um
01:59:47 i don't know it might have been partly misunderstanding i think by the end she understood definitely i think maybe it's partly wanting to make sure she
01:59:58 make sure she drew as much out of artelia and sometimes we did get drawn into things outside our scope yeah you say in your second witness statement at paragraph 12 that
02:00:09 statement at paragraph 12 that um claire williams was reluctant for the tma to incur the additional costs of the cda proposal and we touched on that earlier
02:00:17 earlier to what extent did you think at the time of the rejection that saving money was a part
02:00:22 part of the tma's motivation for object for rejecting this offer it certainly was a consideration but i don't think it was the only part i think
02:00:33 think they they genuinely believe that they could
02:00:36 could do the role themselves yeah and we're best placed for it too yeah what did they say about the cost of the role we we've seen that it was about 30 000 pounds as the basic fee for this role and then the possibility of extras
02:00:50 role and then the possibility of extras did you ever have a discussion about that amount of money and whether the tma were particularly concerned about that um i don't remember anything in particular other than
02:01:01 particular other than just that did we did could they do this role themselves so therefore do they need to spend that money yeah now we saw that in the the email where she rejected the role she said that she
02:01:12 she rejected the role she said that she was going to monitor how it was working and that um any proposals for comment would have a response by date and then she said can you please send any design proposals to myself and david
02:01:24 any design proposals to myself and david gibson
02:01:25 gibson do you recall there ever being any monitoring by the tmo of how the design sign-off process was working
02:01:33 working so um what we used uh for changes and sign off and things was there was a bit of a tracker as to when um
02:01:45 um when proposals were put forward and therefore when a decision needed to come back and i do remember on the project there being some times where i needed to you know support in the administration
02:01:56 you know support in the administration of that
02:01:56 of that so that everybody knew you've got a proposal
02:02:00 proposal you've got two weeks to think about it and respond and ask or raise any queries yeah so uh it was from my memory it was actually ryden that prepared the
02:02:11 it was actually ryden that prepared the track this client change design tracker because they were coordinating the design at that time so they were the ones that were saying well here's what we're proposing
02:02:22 here's what we're proposing two weeks or so come back to us so we could just see where it's at at any one time and everybody knew okay it's with me to decide did you understand that david gibson himself would be checking the design and
02:02:34 himself would be checking the design and compliance in the way that a client design advisor would i thought that
02:02:39 that he would be supporting claire in doing that
02:02:42 that yes were you ever aware of david gibson actually performing any cda functions or considering the design um i was aware of claire was our main
02:02:54 um i was aware of claire was our main point of contact but i think she went back and she checked with all sorts of different people back at tmo about things um as as part of
02:03:05 um as as part of um i saw that in sort of correspondence emails and conversations yeah i don't think claire didn't just do it on her own she definitely consulted others at tmo
02:03:16 definitely consulted others at tmo yep now if i can go back to the email chain
02:03:19 chain where the proposal is rejected art406464 and i want to look at the top of page two
02:03:29 two this is an email from you 29th of august 2014
02:03:32 2014 to ishmael harding who was going to be the cda if appointed and also to simon cash and you just say sadly tmo decided to be their own cda
02:03:43 sadly tmo decided to be their own cda and you forward claire williams email and why was that regrettable why did you say sadly in that
02:03:50 that in that particular email i think rich mel wanted to do the role and yeah she hadn't been appointed
02:03:58 appointed were you concerned that the tma's decision would affect the project
02:04:06 um no i thought no okay now if we go up to the first page of this email chain this is simon cash's response to you of
02:04:18 this is simon cash's response to you of the first of september um and we can see he says this he says philip i would like to think that with ryden's approach so far it should not be an onerous task however it is very important that we do
02:04:30 however it is very important that we do not find ourselves being dragged into dealing with any design any issues relating to compliance or design advice without it being acknowledged as additional work so that was simon
02:04:41 as additional work so that was simon cash's response to you and you've said in your witness statement this is paragraph 50 of your first statement that you understood simon cash to mean that there was not an onerous task because there were only
02:04:52 onerous task because there were only a limited number of changes which would need to be approved is that right um that's partly it particularly yes because
02:05:03 yeah it was we were we weren't expecting loads of changes so we weren't expecting lots of
02:05:09 lots of review to be required i see and you also say that ryden were building according to approved drawings and therefore it was unlikely that many changes would be made so
02:05:20 changes would be made so your view seemed to be at that point well i don't think there are going to be many changes so that we can live with this
02:05:25 this is that is that fair summary yes
02:05:30 when you're referring there to to approve drawings when you say ryden we're building according to approved drawings can you just tell us what exactly you mean by that
02:05:43 so largely ryden were not looking to alter very much from what was tendered to them
02:05:53 to them so studio ears the designers have prepared it up to tender stage and they've been devoted over yeah and and largely right and we're saying that we're just going to build
02:06:04 saying that we're just going to build that
02:06:04 that what you asked us to do um so we're not coming back to you with lots of changes or variations yeah that's what i meant by
02:06:13 by approved as in the client had approved them
02:06:16 them to go to tender yeah at this point did you have in mind that the cladding i mean you obviously knew that there'd been some changes in terms of specification
02:06:27 in terms of specification uh in the period since the contractor had appointed and more finalization of the materials to be used were you thinking about that when you thought to yourself well i don't think this will be a problem
02:06:38 don't think this will be a problem because there won't be too many changes was the cladding in your mind then well the cladding is was always an item that was being reviewed because
02:06:51 an item that was being reviewed because it was a large package even pre-tender so um i don't know i i i knew that was always going to be something that was there were variations coming from it
02:07:04 there were variations coming from it yeah
02:07:05 yeah do you think the tma was taking a risk in not appointing a client design advisor
02:07:17 they don't i'd say taken a risk i think they
02:07:20 they they were not appointing appointing additional specialist advice and support i mean again i reiterate that you kind
02:07:32 i mean again i reiterate that you kind of expect
02:07:33 of expect your designers to pro you know they shouldn't be proposing anything that's not compliant yeah or anything irregular so the cda is is a it's a check-in and a reassurance we've always
02:07:45 check-in and a reassurance we've always so
02:07:46 so yeah yeah now moving on in your first witness statement you explain that despite not appointing a client design advisor the tmo and claire williams in particular kept
02:07:57 particular kept asking artelia about design issues and issues that you consider to be outside the scope of artelia's role is that is that a fair summary that is yes
02:08:08 yes and i just want to look at just a few of those now we're not going to go to the detail that you've included in your statement
02:08:14 statement um but if we can look at say art408627
02:08:26 this is an email from simon lawrence to you
02:08:30 you cc'ing nick valente and its subject is grenfell design and in paragraph one he's dealing with an upcoming meeting and then in
02:08:41 an upcoming meeting and then in paragraph two of this email he says on top of this i sat down with claire this afternoon and she has concerns about some of the design and is proposing changes all of which is fine providing it's done
02:08:53 all of which is fine providing it's done formally so everyone is in the loop my only concern is that the designs she has concerns about are the tender drawings which were obviously issued to us
02:09:00 us by the tmo admittedly we are the designers but i won't be expecting us to make changes to flat layouts etc off our own back
02:09:08 own back we would assume that they were correctly designed at tender she also mentioned that designs needing to comply with kctmo design guide i'll haven't checked the tender docks yet but i don't believe this has
02:09:20 docks yet but i don't believe this has been issued to us but i could be wrong so plenty to iron out before we get far and changes become costly for no reason do you see that there yes so it appears from this that claire williams had been
02:09:31 from this that claire williams had been proposing changes to the flat layouts and simon lawrence was expressing some concern to you about that again is that fair yes
02:09:41 was it your understanding that claire williams was attempting to change the designs without having received advice or input from a a designer from someone with expertise in in architectural design
02:09:55 so what she was talking about was changing um some of the lower floor layouts and purposes so
02:10:06 lower floor layouts and purposes so you know from memory it was things like well we were going to have an office there but
02:10:10 there but can we can we put another flat there things like that they weren't necessarily um you need to be done by an architect they were client design their client wishes and changes
02:10:21 their client wishes and changes i see was it your view at the time that she didn't understand the implications of
02:10:25 of changing the designs no she she definitely understood and i i i spent time with her and and said look
02:10:38 changes could well have impact on program
02:10:41 program and could have impact on costs and should only be made if absolutely necessary yeah now in paragraphs 165 to 167 of your
02:10:52 now in paragraphs 165 to 167 of your first statement you provide some further examples from october 2014 where there were so the first one you give is there were concerns on the part of ryden
02:11:01 of ryden about claire williams attempting to change the size of the windows do you remember that yes and then you also give an example that there was confusion over the sign off of risk assessments and methodology
02:11:12 off of risk assessments and methodology statements following an instance where the boilers were shut off do you remember that i remember that incident yes now i'm not going to ask you about the detail of those incidents but i want to ask you some more general questions
02:11:24 some more general questions at that stage so this is what you're describing as examples from october 2014 did you have concerns about the tma's understanding of roles and responsibilities on the
02:11:35 of roles and responsibilities on the project
02:11:36 project i don't think she had a i don't know i don't think she had there was a um confusion particularly um the windows bit was you know it was
02:11:47 um the windows bit was you know it was genuine that she picked up that the windows were going to change and size so that wasn't a role of responsibility issue and the we did need to explain the the boys getting shut off was purely
02:11:59 the the boys getting shut off was purely uh
02:12:01 uh how ryden were doing the works um issue and um it was a problem because residents ended up not having hot water for a couple of days
02:12:13 having hot water for a couple of days and we responded by saying well actually ryden have got to be responsible for managing how the works are done on site we as artillia in
02:12:24 on site we as artillia in all our hats don't don't approve how the works are sort of carried out right that's got to sit firmly with the responsibility of riding because they're they're managing the day-to-day yeah
02:12:36 they're managing the day-to-day yeah works on site did you ever suggest to the tmo that they should perhaps reconsider its rejection of the appointment of a client design advisor
02:12:49 advisor i no i don't think i did claire was fulfilling the duties he was accepting
02:12:58 proposals going and consulting sometimes she was asking you know my opinion on things and i had to sort of point her elsewhere but she was doing the duties i see
02:13:09 but she was doing the duties i see yeah so looking back on it do you think you should have advised the tmo that it should have reconsidered this given how things then panned out on the project well yeah in
02:13:21 panned out on the project well yeah in hindsight you know it would maybe um richmel would have picked up some of the obvious issues that have occurred now we've seen things have gone so
02:13:32 yeah um in hindsight potentially [Applause] now again just some more general questions here after ryden was appointed
02:13:43 questions here after ryden was appointed in march 2014 we know there were a number of value engineering design decisions that were taken including in relation to the cladding and i just want to ask you a little bit about the process of decision making in
02:13:54 about the process of decision making in that period was there any process as far as you were concerned to assess the impact of changing the design as a result of the value engineering that was done
02:14:07 so um there was a lot of value engineering on this project and there were options put forward and every of every thing that was put forward um
02:14:20 every thing that was put forward um the consideration of well what what's that going to change was was considered now most most of it was around um what's that going to do to
02:14:32 that going to do to cost and some of it was what's that going to do to the program and obviously what's that do to sort of
02:14:39 sort of quality as well so there were plenty of reviews
02:14:44 reviews all of the professional team were engaged in the value engineering exercises as well as ryden when they were
02:14:51 were on board i think all of the ev it was it was a very uh collaborative piece of work to review what could be value engineered and what couldn't
02:15:03 value engineered and what couldn't and proposals were put forward some were decided to proceed with and and some were not
02:15:09 were not okay just picking up you talked about quality
02:15:13 quality to your knowledge was there an assessment done of the potential changes in terms of value engineering and any reduction in quality that would result so
02:15:24 that would result so um the way contract like value engineering goes is i think the proposals might be identified by somebody and it's put forward and then what's different with a proposal to the
02:15:36 what's different with a proposal to the should be highlighted so you can make an informed decision on on the overall and um and that process was worked through with the design team because most of the most of the proposals for
02:15:48 most of the most of the proposals for changes came from material changes and design changes some of it was just excluding scope and that's
02:15:55 that's that's simple so yeah i think but the onus
02:15:59 onus of what are the changes in terms of quality is from whoever's putting forward that proposal largely from either designers or ryden
02:16:11 largely from either designers or ryden and then they were debated and reviewed and discussed for the client to decide yes or no
02:16:16 yes or no right was there any specific assessment of the potential changes in terms of risk to safety so um
02:16:28 there was there was lots of discussion around
02:16:32 around um changes but it was always you know assumed and uh implied that everything put forward would need to be safe that's implicit you know uh but you ever
02:16:44 implicit you know uh but you ever ever consid did you ever were you ever aware of
02:16:47 aware of a specific assessment being done of the potential changes in terms of any risk to safety um so
02:17:00 um so an example would be at one point we were talking about changing the windows and how they were going to operate yeah and what was put in with tilt and turn windows
02:17:09 windows and that was one of the reasons that the value engineering to change that to a normal just opening window was actually it's safer tilt and turn because you can just have your window like that so yes
02:17:20 just have your window like that so yes they they were considered um but they were usually you know yeah they were considered was it any part of your role to make sure that there was a change control
02:17:32 sure that there was a change control process
02:17:33 process in place so that a qualified designer considered the impact of for example the change in the choice of cladding materials
02:17:43 materials so i think we did have a change control process agreed and documented and that was one of the flow diagrams that i showed
02:17:54 that i showed we were working collaboratively all together in terms of what value engineering was taken forward but the you know the responsibility of design
02:18:06 you know the responsibility of design and
02:18:06 and safety you know is always so for the cladding example all of the debates
02:18:13 debates about changes and were all around aesthetics yeah or fixing and planning they were never around is it going to be fire compliant or is it safe because
02:18:24 it safe because that's just a given that designers have to design to the you know health and safety requirements of the time to your knowledge did the cdm coordinator on the project have any
02:18:36 coordinator on the project have any input
02:18:36 input into the value engineering decisions in relation to the cutting materials um not particularly no he was more involved in
02:18:50 know sort of kick off of the project and methodology of how works were maybe going to be done yeah um asbestos and things was a big focus of his um but
02:19:02 big focus of his um but um so no it wasn't massive he wasn't it's not really a cdm role in value engineering so much was really the consequences of the final decisions on
02:19:14 consequences of the final decisions on the value engineering to say use different materials it was whether or not
02:19:18 not you can ever recall the cdm coordinator being involved no um design change tracker we've touched on this already but i want to ask you some more questions about it if we can go to art408861
02:19:32 we can go to art408861 this is an email from simon lawrence to you
02:19:36 you on the 24th of october 2014 and the subject is change tracker and in the email we get it from the first line he explains that
02:19:48 first line he explains that following a client design meeting he says i've put together a spreadsheet tracker for project changes as attached before i send it out formally i wanted to run it past your
02:19:59 formally i wanted to run it past your cells to make sure it works for you also basically ryden don't have a specific document to record change because it's normally done via email records rfis drawings etc in my experience some
02:20:12 rfis drawings etc in my experience some of the standard construction processes don't always work as well in refurb as they do in new build environment because of the way and timings that clients have to make decisions often reactively
02:20:23 decisions often reactively so we often find that parts of the project team get informed late in particular the commercial side then it becomes hard work all round to catch up and reconcile what's happened anyway i've put together this hybrid
02:20:35 anyway i've put together this hybrid form from several others we have with the aim that it can serve as a record and audit trail of what has changed and why it's only an overview sheet to use in conjunction with emails rfis etc
02:20:46 conjunction with emails rfis etc it will also highlight any likely financial or programmed change so the client doesn't get any surprises and then he says if as a team we feel it will work then i'll add it to my monthly report
02:20:55 report do you see that yes i do and do you remember receiving this document and the attachment yes
02:21:04 and just before we go to the tracker that he proposed and the attachment um we can see he said there that ryden
02:21:16 um we can see he said there that ryden don't have a specific document to record change because it's normally done via email records rfis drawings would you have expected ryden to have had a way of formally recording and
02:21:28 had a way of formally recording and managing
02:21:29 managing design decisions
02:21:33 um i think what rfis is usually the methodology the contractors use which stands for request for information but it can become quite a
02:21:45 it can become quite a clunky and administratively uh you know burdensome process yeah and i get what he was talking about there on refurbishments
02:21:56 refurbishments because sometimes you know there are uncertainties you find something and you need to sort maybe faster answer than on a new build so i supported his proposal of a simple
02:22:07 i supported his proposal of a simple change tracker to help with keeping an audit trail of what was needed when yeah but um i suppose what i'm getting at is whether you were surprised
02:22:18 getting at is whether you were surprised that
02:22:18 that simon lawrence had to put one together for this project and that there wasn't one
02:22:22 one that ryden as a standard always used um well i read this as
02:22:31 he felt that this would be an easier way of using this than using their other systems
02:22:36 systems which have been rfi's i'm familiar with other contractors they're very slick sort of online tools but again they can be quite
02:22:43 be quite clunky and administrative to manage um now i think you've just said that you would agree with simon lawrence that there can be this distinction between new builds and refurbishment in terms of
02:22:56 refurbishment in terms of time for decisions needing to be made unexpected things flashing up and you having to react is that correct yes you'd expect that less on an on a
02:23:07 yes you'd expect that less on an on a knee before does that have the consequence that sign off of the design decisions and design changes
02:23:13 changes um is often rushed and had it become rushed on this project it shouldn't have been because a lot of um
02:23:22 um what this was tracking wasn't actually finding out things like from from the building necessarily um
02:23:30 um so it shouldn't have been rushed um had it become rushed on this project so there there had been um part of the reason for having this tracker was to create more visibility because i
02:23:42 was to create more visibility because i think definitely the tmo were feeling they were perhaps not given the time scale to consider drawings and respond and this was
02:23:53 respond and this was a direct response to that so that they it could be more transparent more open and and know what was coming down the line yeah
02:24:01 line yeah so um there had been some instances where they'd had to make decisions quicker than perhaps the two weeks or so that would normally be allowed
02:24:10 allowed yeah let's have a look at the tracker he was proposing at this point this is a
02:24:16 rt408592
02:24:22 and i think it's right that you did provide some comments on this but is it right that you didn't have any comments on the structure or format of the tracker
02:24:30 tracker it looked good to me it was helpful you thought it was a helpful document yes yes
02:24:38 so we can see on the left you get the description of the change any related information in terms of the drawing numbers who it's been requested by
02:24:46 by the date of the request when it's been resolved and signed off any cost and and implication impact and program impact are then recorded on the right hand side
02:24:59 recorded on the right hand side now moving on with this story if we go to art408532
02:25:08 this is an email from you to simon lawrence and claire williams about the tracker and this is on the 12th of november
02:25:19 and this is on the 12th of november 2014. so simon lawrence had proposed this
02:25:23 this on the 24th of october 2014 and you now in mid-november pick this up and you say this you say simon i'm concerned i've not yet seen the tracker distributed following the design
02:25:34 tracker distributed following the design meeting held on 22nd of october i commented on this on friday the 24th of oct and thought it would be a good document and process to adopt on the tracker were some short timetables for decisions put upon kctmo
02:25:48 timetables for decisions put upon kctmo to meet the design development program and also a record of areas of design alteration to be carried out by your design team i'm concerned that because the tracker hasn't been seen some of these deadlines may have been
02:25:59 some of these deadlines may have been missed
02:26:01 missed do you see that there and then he says as we agreed at the meeting ryden are responsible for managing the design development process and for seeking approval for alterations to tender designs and comments on four construction
02:26:13 and comments on four construction drawings
02:26:14 drawings i just want to make sure that appropriate and fair time is given to max fordham and tmo to review and comment on drawings there have been some difficult quick decisions required recently for tmo and you give examples of window and
02:26:26 and you give examples of window and metering and i want to ensure that going forward these type of things are avoided or recognized early to give time um
02:26:35 time um so is it fair to say that you regarded this tracker as an important document at this time to make sure that design changes were probably considered by everyone who needed to consider them
02:26:48 everyone who needed to consider them yes enough i was chasing um to see what simon had done with him i mean i wasn't engaged directly in the design uh
02:26:59 engaged directly in the design uh develop you know the design um coordination so simon and claire would you know would be doing that directly without me i'd only hear about it if
02:27:09 it if claire you know a decision had been made that needed to instruct him as my role of his employer's agent so he may well have at that time i was just concerned well i haven't seen anything more and i was chasing him because i thought
02:27:20 and i was chasing him because i thought actually it was a good document and i didn't want claire to be you know any surprises going forward and i wanted to make sure we were getting best value from the work that you've
02:27:32 best value from the work that you've already done yeah and is it right that you also regarded it as an important document to ensure that decisions and approvals were recorded in an orderly way
02:27:42 yes i mean i'd still need i'd still need to formalize decisions like instructions to the as employers agent to the contract
02:27:53 contract but this was a sort of precursor to that because it might have been things that change
02:27:57 change they don't decide to do etc yeah was it within your role to make sure that ryden were managing the design approvals process in an orderly way
02:28:08 um yeah to check that they had a system and process in place for managing the design yeah um yeah that's reasonable now you discuss this
02:28:19 discuss this this tracker and these documents in your first witness statement um for the transcript that's page 52 paragraph 175 but you don't say what happened thereafter
02:28:30 thereafter do we take it from that that this wasn't progressed beyond ryden's draft can you help us as to what happened i i remember it being used
02:28:41 i i remember it being used um more at this summer as a document going forward so i think it didn't die here it was continued to be used um
02:28:54 continued to be used um but again because i wasn't in the design meetings i didn't see all of the iterations of it going through i i would only see when a decision was made and therefore i
02:29:05 when a decision was made and therefore i needed to instruct the change as part of the contract but so to your knowledge was this tracker in fact used i think it was okay
02:29:20 now mr chairman i note the time and i'm aware that this witness needed a slightly longer break before ideally i would because we've lost a little bit of time perhaps just go on
02:29:31 little bit of time perhaps just go on for another 10 more minutes and finish this subtopic but obviously subject to the witness feeling yeah we're getting a little bit behind time but would you feel able to carry on
02:29:42 time but would you feel able to carry on for
02:29:42 for 10 minutes yeah absolutely yeah yeah that's good all right thank you thank you
02:29:46 you thank you so i just want to finish and look now at the design flow chart picking up on this point about the design approval process now you say in your first witness
02:29:57 now you say in your first witness statement this is paragraph 180 that in december 2014 claire williams expressed confusion about the design approval process let's let's look at what you say there this is
02:30:08 let's look at what you say there this is your first witness statement art408527 page 54 paragraph 180.
02:30:20 so you say on the 4th of december 2014 i received an email from claire williams in which she expressed that she still had some confusion on the design approval process she explained that her assumption was
02:30:31 she explained that her assumption was that max fordham reviewed the drawings first
02:30:34 first and then the tma would get the final version to comment on but this was not what ryden were doing i recall that following this email i produced a flow chart to clarify the arrangements for signing off on design
02:30:45 arrangements for signing off on design changes
02:30:46 changes which i circulated on the 5th of december 2014 i believe that the reason for confusion was that there was more change than would normally be expected on a dmb project that was designed up to the
02:30:57 project that was designed up to the level the project had been at had been at tender my aim was that the chart i had prepared would control the process
02:31:04 process better during progress meeting number six on the 11th of december 2014 it was agreed that the design approval process set out in the chart would be followed by the team so that's
02:31:15 would be followed by the team so that's what you say there and and you referred to this earlier in your evidence of you introducing this let's look at that flow chart this is a
02:31:26 rt408757
02:31:32 so this is a i think a flow chart and it's headed grenfell drawing approval process it's a draft and i think what we can see is there there's a number of routes by which you
02:31:44 there's a number of routes by which you get
02:31:44 get to construction issue drawings on the right hand side is that is that correct yes now did this chart only apply to the m e aspects of the
02:31:55 only apply to the m e aspects of the work the m e changes or did it was it intended to apply to other parts of the project no it's all drawings from what was issued
02:32:04 issued like at the contract through to construction i see so even though we've got max fordham
02:32:12 fordham here in a number of the boxes so are we to read this as having applied for example to the drawing approval process for the for any cladding changes
02:32:25 for any cladding changes so it's not very easy because of the colors
02:32:28 colors but the bottom arrows are different colors
02:32:32 colors so you have contract drawing on the left yeah and
02:32:36 yeah and the color for m e changes is going out the top of contract drawings because there would be a an m e proposed change from the contract to construction so max fordham would look at
02:32:47 so max fordham would look at i don't know if they're changing the boiler arrangements that would be something that would be in their sphere of reviewing yeah so they would look at it comment on it and then if the change was
02:32:58 comment on it and then if the change was agreed
02:32:59 agreed it would be sent to artillery for instruction and then make you know we'd instruct it and then go to construction drawings yeah so and if there was no change
02:33:10 yeah so and if there was no change between the contract drawings and construction drawings that's the arrow that comes out at the bottom and just goes
02:33:15 goes straight in one two yeah i understand that um
02:33:18 that um and architectural changes which would be like cladding is the middle arrow so tmo review the change
02:33:26 change comes to us instruct and then goes to construction i see so
02:33:33 i see so i see so that's if there's a change to a contract drawing in relation to the cladding design it would go first to the tmo to review the change yeah and then if the change was agreed
02:33:45 yeah and then if the change was agreed the revised drawing was sent to artelia for instruction by either the tmo well here would be the tmo
02:33:53 tmo and then you go straight to the construction drawing i see so is there a step in this process whereby the change is reviewed by a design professional
02:34:05 design professional we can see that that would be the case for the m e change where max fordham review
02:34:11 review the change but what about the cladding change
02:34:14 change in the middle so i was trying i think at this time
02:34:18 this time uh we knew that the tmo were performing that duty that's why that that middle box is there yeah and had the client design advisor been appointed would have gone to the client design
02:34:30 would have gone to the client design advisor yes and then the tmo yes yes and where does ryden sit in relation to this process
02:34:41 this process so they're in control of the overall design
02:34:44 design so their duty is to take contract drawings and develop them up to construction level so they can build it
02:34:53 build it so that contract with the design had been developed to a certain reba stage and there were still
02:35:00 still further design stages to go through before they could actually be built so ryden sort of sits as overall overarching i see
02:35:12 overall overarching i see what i tried to pull out in the other that little box there tmo wished all to the tender drawings because part of this was also ryden's saying to me look we were just going to build the contract drawings
02:35:24 going to build the contract drawings we don't we're not proposing we don't really want to propose changes we just want to make this simple what you've asked for we will build uh and i wanted to put factor in well if if tmo want to
02:35:36 put factor in well if if tmo want to change a contract drawing yeah that needs to also be factored in instructed so that it's fair to the right and to know okay we've got to change that i see
02:35:48 we've got to change that i see now as we saw as we just read in your first witness statement you explained that the reason this flowchart was needed
02:35:54 needed was because the project had more change than would normally be inspect it expected on a dmb project that was designed up to the level the project had been at tender that's correct isn't it
02:36:06 correct isn't it yes did the fact that there were more than the usual number of changes prompt the need for this process or would you have expected a similar process to be in place in any event so i
02:36:20 in any event so i i put this i mean i think the process um this was to help clarify um because there was um for claire really um
02:36:33 really um this is not unusual um within [Music]
02:36:37 [Music] any construction project
02:36:42 is it right that before you proposed this draft flowchart there was no agreed process for circulating and approving design decisions no i think what was happening was
02:36:56 it was happening in design meetings between ryden and tmo and there was just it was getting more intricate and more volume
02:37:08 more intricate and more volume uh hence why needing more governance and structure and clarity on how everyone was going to do it i see given that ryden
02:37:19 that ryden was sat really above this and was you know
02:37:22 know had overarching responsibility for getting that design approval um should it have been ryden in fact proposing this sort of system and flowchart on the project
02:37:34 um yes it wouldn't have been unusual for them to
02:37:40 them to do that i i took it upon myself to help with clarifying roles and it's my role so um it could it could have been as well i see now we we can see that you sent the flow chart
02:37:52 we can see that you sent the flow chart to claire williams on the 5th of december 2014 for the transcript that's a rt408600 um can you recall was there any discussion between you and claire
02:38:03 discussion between you and claire williams about it after you sent her this flowchart yes i think walked it through with her similar to what i've just
02:38:10 just said to here yeah and we can see if we just look this is the last reference i'll take you to and then we'll stop if we can go to
02:38:21 then we'll stop if we can go to art403302
02:38:23 art403302 these are the minutes of progress meeting number six on the 11th of december 2014 we can see in the present list that you and claire williams are present
02:38:35 and claire williams are present and if we go to page 2 under item 3.1 we can see it says it's under the heading design development all agreed to follow presenter drawing
02:38:46 all agreed to follow presenter drawing approval process presented by pcb is that you there pcb yeah my middle name snuck in there somehow yeah yes we won't ask you what it is charles a fine name
02:38:59 charles a fine name um did you present the flow chart at this meeting i did was there any discussion about it at this meeting uh definitely it was um it was a
02:39:13 uh definitely it was um it was a topic of um you know importance at the time because of
02:39:20 of you know the concerns raised by both claire and ryden so um i mean it wasn't a long discussion i think everybody said actually that helps yeah clarifies let's follow this that
02:39:31 yeah clarifies let's follow this that was
02:39:33 was so that was the point of doing this i was pleased okay and to your knowledge was that then followed going forwards including on non-m e elements
02:39:44 including on non-m e elements i believe it was followed yes yeah mr chairman thank you very much for letting me
02:39:49 me have that no that's good is that a convenient very convenient moment yes thank you right thank you well this was we didn't go on longer than
02:39:56 than uh i thought we might so um we'll stop there for the day okay uh i must ask you i'm afraid to come back tomorrow to answer some more questions
02:40:05 questions that's fine um 10 o'clock please to start
02:40:08 start and uh please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it of course once you leave the room all right so we'll see you at 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you very much thank you very much
02:40:20 thank you very much thank you very much all right do you like to go to the usher
02:40:34 all right do you like to go to the usher right well thank you for strangers 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:40:49 o'clock tomorrow you